DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed October 31, 2025. Claims 1-30 are still pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “receive… a first indication via a first channel… to assist in accessing the first channel based… on a second channel being busy”
However, upon review the specification, it was found that paragraph [0192] recites “the first wireless device may receive, from a second wireless device via a first channel, a first indication to assist the first wireless device in accessing a second channel for communication with at least one of a third wireless device”.
Further paragraph [0035] recites “if a first wireless device performs a channel contention procedure and determines that a first channel is occupied by a second wireless device, the first wireless device may switch to a second channel until the first channel becomes available again.”
There is no discussion of the relationship between the “channel being busy” and the “indication to assist.”
Claims 26, 29 and 30 include similar limitations and are rejected for the same reason above.
Claims 2-25 are rejected for being depending upon claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of frethe claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 11-13, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pettersson et al. (US 2024/0008080, “Pettersson”).
Regarding claim 1, Pettersson teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a first wireless device (FIG. 4 – AP2 ), comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory coupled with the at least one processor, the at least one memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor (FIG. 15) to cause the apparatus to:
receive, from a second wireless device via a first channel, a first indication to assist the first wireless device in accessing the first channel for communication (FIG. 5 shows AP1 and AP2 each communicate in its bandwidth part, corresponding to claimed first channel and second channel respectively. [0060] “each AP is aware of the other AP's primary bandwidth part and scans the other AP's primary bandwidth part for control frames… AP1 performs control signaling (CTRL) for coordinating the sharing of the TXOP. This control signaling may involve transmission of the above-mentioned CTI message and/or CTAS message… the control signaling for coordinating the sharing of the TXOP, e.g., the CTI message, can also indicate the reservation of the TXOP by AP1. Due to the scanning of the primary bandwidth part of AP1, AP2 detects that AP1 has reserved the TXOP and is willing to share it, e.g., based on the CTI message transmitted by AP1.” Note: FIG. 5, CRT, i.e., CTI/CTAS message are transmitted in AP1’s bandwidth part, i.e., claimed “first channel”.
FIG. 6 - [0062] “the primary bandwidth part of AP1 is formed of a first channel (Ch1) and a second channel (Ch2). The primary bandwidth part of AP2 is formed of the second channel and a third channel (Ch3)” [0064] “Due to the scanning of the primary bandwidth part of AP1, AP2 detects the CTI message and responds with a CTR message indicating that AP2 is willing to participate in the sharing of the TXOP… AP1 then sends a CTAS message, informing AP2 about resources of the TXOP that can be used by AP2. As can be seen, also the CTAS message is sent on both the first channel and the second channel, and thus replicated over all channels of the primary bandwidth part of AP1… AP2 then sends a CTLS message, informing its associated STA(s) about one or more scheduled data transmissions in the TXOP reserved in another bandwidth part. Upon reception of the CTLS, the associated STA(s) switch to the corresponding channels, so that the data transmission(s) in the shared TXOP can be received.”) base at least in part on a second channel being busy ([0060] “At the same time, AP2 may continue to contend for access to its own primary bandwidth, by performing CCA procedure in its primary bandwidth”[0062] “Over the entire process, AP2 may continue attempting access to the third channel, by performing a CCA procedure, or the third channel may be blocked to setting of a NAV (Network Allocation Vector).” Note: Since AP2 still has to perform CCA procedure in its primary bandwidth part/channel 3, corresponding to claimed “second channel”, AP2 does not have access to the channel, therefore bandwidth part/channel 3 are considered busy for AP2’s); and
communicate via the first channel based at least in part on the first indication from the second wireless device ([0060] - “To participate in the sharing of the TXOP for transmission of data to its associated STAs, AP2 then switches to the primary bandwidth part of AP2, where the TXOP was reserved, and also instructs its associated STAs to perform corresponding channel switching.’ [0064] “AP2 then sends a CTLS message, informing its associated STA(s) about one or more scheduled data transmissions in the TXOP reserved in another bandwidth part. Upon reception of the CTLS, the associated STA(s) switch to the corresponding channels, so that the data transmission(s) in the shared TXOP can be received” ).
Regarding claim 2, Pettersson teaches claim 1, and further teaches wherein:
the first wireless device is a first access point (AP) or a first station (STA) that supports multi-primary channel access, enhanced multi-link single-radio operation, or both ([0012], [0047]);
the second wireless device is a second AP or a second STA associated with an overlapping basic service set (OBSS) ([0070]); and
one or both of the first wireless device or the second wireless device are capable of operating non-concurrently on the first channel and the second channel ([0057] “second AP 402 and the associated STA(s) of the second AP 402 switch from a first channel, in the primary bandwidth part of the second AP 402, to a second channel in the bandwidth part”); wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least the one processor to cause the apparatus to:
receive a second indication from the second wireless device is indicative of timing information that pertains to a network allocation vector (NAV) associated with a transmit opportunity (TXOP) on the second channel ([0056] – “The first AP 401 then sends a CTAS message 413 to the second AP 402, to inform the second AP 402, i.e., the sharing AP, about its allocated resources and the TX start time in the shared TXOP. The second AP 402 then sends a CTLS message 414 to its associated STA(s) 403”).
Regarding claim 3, Pettersson teaches claim 1, and further teaches wherein, to receive the second indication, the instructions are executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to: receive, from the second wireless device via the second channel, a binary indication pertaining to whether the NAV corresponds to an actual duration of the TXOP ([0054] “the first AP 401 initiates the sharing of the TXOP by sending a CTI message 411. The CTI message 411 indicates that the first AP 401 has obtained a TXOP and, is willing to share its TXOP”. [0077] “The CTI could then indicate the remaining duration of the TXOP”).
Regarding claim 5, Pettersson teaches claim 2, and further teaches to: receive, from the second wireless device via the second channel, the timing information that pertains to an actual duration of the TXOP, wherein the actual duration of the TXOP includes time durations used by all STAs participating in the TXOP ([0056] “first AP 401 then sends a CTAS message 413 to the second AP 402, to inform the second AP 402, i.e., the sharing AP, about its allocated resources and the TX start time in the shared TXOP. The second AP 402 then sends a CTLS message 414 to its associated STA(s) 403.” It is understood “resources” include frequency and time range within the “shared TXOP” as indicated in FIG. 5. [0060]).
Regarding claim 7, Pettersson teaches claim 2, and further teaches wherein the instructions to receive the first indication are executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to: receive, from the second wireless device via the second channel, the timing information that pertains to a time duration for which the second wireless device intends to use the second channel ([0053] “where a first AP 401 has performed a CCA procedure and successfully gained access to one or more channels in its primary bandwidth part and reserves a TXOP which is shared with a second AP 402” [0054] “the first AP 401 initiates the sharing of the TXOP by sending a CTI message 411. The CTI message 411 indicates that the first AP 401 has obtained a TXOP and, is willing to share its TXOP” [0056] “The first AP 401 then sends a CTAS message 413 to the second AP 402, to inform the second AP 402, i.e., the sharing AP, about its allocated resources and the TX start time in the shared TXOP.”)
Regarding claim 11, Pettersson teaches claim 2, and further teaches wherein: the first wireless device is a first access point (AP) (FIG. 4 – AP2 ) or a station (STA) that supports multi-primary channel access, enhanced multi-link single-radio operation, or both ([0012],[0047] ); the second wireless device is a second AP associated with an overlapping basic service set (OBSS) ([0070]); one or both of the first wireless device or the second wireless device are capable of operating non-concurrently on the first channel and the second channel ([0057] “second AP 402 and the associated STA(s) of the second AP 402 switch from a first channel, in the primary bandwidth part of the second AP 402, to a second channel in the bandwidth part”) wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to: receive the second indication from the second wireless device comprises bandwidth information that pertains to a restricted target wake time (R-TWT) service period of the second AP associated with the OBSS ([0054] “the CTI message 411 indicates the bandwidth part for which the TXOP was obtained, e.g., in terms of channel numbers or a bandwidth size and a starting channel number”).
Regarding claim 12, Pettersson teaches claim 2, and further teaches wherein the instructions to receive the first indication are executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to: receive, from the second AP via the second channel, the bandwidth information pertaining to a bandwidth the second AP intends to use during the R-TWT service period, wherein the bandwidth includes the second channel and excludes the first channel ([0054] “the CTI message 411 indicates the bandwidth part for which the TXOP was obtained, e.g., in terms of channel numbers or a bandwidth size and a starting channel number” [0065] “This may allow for implementing the coordinated channel access also for two or more APs which operate in non-overlapping bandwidth parts”).
Regarding claim 13, Pettersson teaches claim 2, and further teaches wherein: the first wireless device is a station (STA) that supports multi-primary channel access, enhanced multi-link single-radio operation, or both ([0056] “The first AP 401 then sends a CTAS message 413 to the second AP 402, to inform the second AP 402, i.e., the sharing AP, about its allocated resources and the TX start time in the shared TXOP. The second AP 402 then sends a CTLS message 414 to its associated STA(s) 403.” [0057]”The CTLS message 414 informs the associated STA(s) 403 about their respectively allocated resources within the TXOP, according to local scheduling performed by the second AP 402. The CTLS message 414 further indicates to the associated STA(s) 403 whether switching to another channel is required.” [0012] “The data transmission then follows the response from the non-AP STA. As a result, the non-AP STA and the AP exchange frames on one link at a time. Such operation is also referred to as MLSR (Multi Link Single Radio)”); the second wireless device is an access point (AP) that supports multi-primary channel access, enhanced multi-link single-radio operation, or both ([0012] “The data transmission then follows the response from the non-AP STA. As a result, the non-AP STA and the AP exchange frames on one link at a time. Such operation is also referred to as MLSR (Multi Link Single Radio)”); and the first indication from the second wireless device comprises scheduling information that pertains to a set of stations (STAs) the AP intends to serve during a transmit opportunity (TXOP) on the first channel ([0057]”The CTLS message 414 informs the associated STA(s) 403 about their respectively allocated resources within the TXOP, according to local scheduling performed by the second AP 402. The CTLS message 414 further indicates to the associated STA(s) 403 whether switching to another channel is required.”)
Regarding claim 29, Pettersson teaches a method for wireless communication at a first wireless device (FIG. 4 – AP2 ), comprising: receiving, from a second wireless device via a first channel, a first indication to assist the first wireless device in accessing a second channel for communication with at least one of a third wireless device (FIG. 4 – AP2 receives CTAS from AP1. [0136] “The first AP 401 then sends a CTAS message 413 to the second AP 402, to inform the second AP 402, i.e., the sharing AP, about its allocated resources and the TX start time in the shared TXOP. The second AP 402 then sends a CTLS message 414 to its associated STA(s) 403”); and communicating with the at least one of the third wireless device via the second channel based at least in part on accessing the second channel in accordance with the first indication from the second wireless device ([0057] - “the second AP 402 and the associated STA(s) of the second AP 402 switch from a first channel, in the primary bandwidth part of the second AP 402, to a second channel in the bandwidth part for which the TXOP was obtained, as indicated by the CTI message 411. One or more data transmissions 417 from the second AP 402 to its associated STA(s) 403 are then performed in the shared TXOP’).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettersson in view of Ryu et al. (US 2024/0306194, “Ryu”).
Regarding claim 4, Pettersson teaches claim 1, and further teaches
{monitor the second channel using a first radio of the first wireless device when the actual duration of the TXOP differs from a duration of the NAV}; and
receive, via the first channel, one or more trigger-based uplink communications from a STA using a second radio of the first wireless device ([0012] “the non-AP STA and the AP exchange frames on one link at a time.” “Exchange frames” indicate communications including both uplink and downlink communications).
Pettersson does not teach monitor the second channel using a first radio of the first wireless device when the actual duration of the TXOP differs from a duration of the NAV
Ryu teaches monitor the second channel using a first radio of the first wireless device when the actual duration of the TXOP differs from a duration of the NAV ([0058] “if the non-AP STA device 540 monitors a 20 MHz subchannel of the secondary 160 MHz channel and receives an OBSS frame indicating 320 MHz bandwidth and a TXOP duration value equal to or larger than the current basic NAV timer value, then the non-AP STA device 540 updates the basic NAV timer since the bandwidth of the OBSS frame covers the primary 20 MHz channel. (In this case, the non-AP STA device 540 may switch back to the primary 20 MHz channel since the secondary channel access is not available”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature monitor the second channel using a first radio of the first wireless device when the actual duration of the TXOP differs from a duration of the NAV, as taught by Ryu in Pettersson, to utilize channel efficiently.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettersson in view of Zhu et al. (US 2014/0269544, “Zhu”).
Regarding claim 6, Pettersson teaches claim 2, but fails to teach wherein: an effective duration of the TXOP is increased in frames transmitted by the second wireless device subsequent to transmission of the second indication; and the effective duration of the TXOP is increased as a result of a TXOP extension being granted to one or more STAs participating in the TXOP.
However, Zhu teaches
wherein: an effective duration of the TXOP is increased in frames transmitted by the second wireless device subsequent to transmission of the second indication; and the effective duration of the TXOP is increased as a result of a TXOP extension being granted to one or more STAs participating in the TXOP ([0053] “The AP shall always allow the TXOP owner to decide whether the TXOP should be terminated earlier than the previously granted end time, or it should be extended to a time that is within the TXOP limited.” [0086] “requesting an extension of a TXOP period transmission by the TXOP period owner if required to complete a transmission by indicating to the AP by the TXOP period owner intent to extend a current TXOP period”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature wherein: an effective duration of the TXOP is increased in frames transmitted by the second wireless device subsequent to transmission of the second indication; and the effective duration of the TXOP is increased as a result of a TXOP extension being granted to one or more STAs participating in the TXOP, as taught by Zhu in Pettersson, to utilize channel efficiently.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettersson in view of Lou et al. (US 2023/0163808, “Lou”).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Pettersson teaches claim 2, but fails to teach to
receive, from the second wireless device via the second channel, the timing information that identifies one or more shared APs or STAs that intend to use the second channel during the TXOP and
perform a channel contention procedure to gain access to the second channel based at least in part on a determination that the one or more shared APs or STAs are outside a preamble detection (PD) range of the second wireless device.
Lou teaches to
receive, from the second wireless device via the second channel, the timing information that identifies one or more shared APs or STAs that intend to use the second channel during the TXOP ([0161] “CTAS frame may indicate the APs which may join the TXOP transmission. In one method, AP1 may announce the AP IDs or BSSIDs of these APs.”)
perform a channel contention procedure to gain access to the second channel based at least in part on a determination that the one or more shared APs or STAs are outside a preamble detection (PD) range of the second wireless device ([0155] “all the APs transmit part of preamble over the entire bandwidth. For example, the legacy preamble part, including L-STF, L-LTF, L-SIG field may be transmitted over the entire bandwidth even though each AP may be assigned to transmit over a narrower resource unit/subchannel. In this way, STAs in the coverage range of all the APs may hear the preamble part and may know the transmission is happening and hold their own transmission”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature receive, from the second wireless device via the second channel, the timing information that identifies one or more shared APs or STAs that intend to use the second channel during the TXOP and
perform a channel contention procedure to gain access to the second channel based at least in part on a determination that the one or more shared APs or STAs are outside a preamble detection (PD) range of the second wireless device, as taught by Lou in Pettersson, to provide clear communications to devices that join the TXOP transmission.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettersson in view of
Lou and further in view of Ryu.
Regarding claim 10, Pettersson in view of Lou teaches claim 8 but fails to teach to switch from the first channel to the second channel based at least in part on a determination that the one or more shared APs or STAs are within a preamble detection (PD) range of the second wireless device.
Ryu teaches to switch from the first channel to the second channel based at least in part on a determination that the one or more shared APs or STAs are within a preamble detection (PD) range of the second wireless device ([0018] - OBSS conflict avoidance solutions have been proposed wherein a receiving STA device which supports preamble/packet detection on one channel at a time can sequentially switch to one or more alternative channels after determining the relevance and duration of the OBSS occupancy of the primary channel)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature to switch from the first channel to the second channel based at least in part on a determination that the one or more shared APs or STAs are within a preamble detection (PD) range of the second wireless device, as taught by Ryu in Pettersson, to avoid conflict.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettersson in view of Son et al. (US 2019/0306920, “Son”).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Pettersson teaches claim 14 but does not teach to: transition from a first power state to a second power state based at least in part on an expiration of a timeout period associated with monitoring the first channel, wherein the first power state comprises a receive ready state that consumes more power than the second power state
switch from the first channel to a third channel based at least in part on transitioning from the first power state to the second power state; and remain in the second power state until the third channel becomes available.
SON teaches to: transition from a first power state to a second power state based at least in part on an expiration of a timeout period associated with monitoring the first channel, wherein the first power state comprises a receive ready state that consumes more power than the second power state ([0011] “performs a backoff procedure when the primary channel is idle for a predetermined first time after the transmission of the first data is completed, and switches to a transmission standby state when a backoff counter of the backoff procedure expires.”)
switch from the first channel to a third channel based at least in part on transitioning from the first power state to the second power state; and remain in the second power state until the third channel becomes available ([0012] “The processor may perform a first CCA procedure of the secondary channel for a predetermined second time before the backoff counter of the backoff procedure expires, and switch to the transmission standby state when the secondary channel is idle for the second time”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature to: transition from a first power state to a second power state based at least in part on an expiration of a timeout period associated with monitoring the first channel, wherein the first power state comprises a receive ready state that consumes more power than the second power state
switch from the first channel to a third channel based at least in part on transitioning from the first power state to the second power state; and remain in the second power state until the third channel becomes available, as taught by Son in Pettersson, to provide high-efficiency/high-performance wireless LAN communication in a high-density environment.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettersson in view of Xia et al. (US 2021/0410163, “Xia”)
Regarding claims 16, Pettersson teaches claim 13, but does not teach receive, from the AP via the first channel, a frame identifying one or more non-AP STAs the AP intends to serve on the second channel during the TXOP.
Xia teaches receive, from the AP via the first channel, a frame identifying one or more non-AP STAs the AP intends to serve on the second channel during the TXOP ([0288] “AP of the shared TXOP holder BSS receives the TXOP access scheduler trigger frame, it sends a Unicast TXOP access request trigger frame 778, 780 to each non-AP shared TXOP participant STA.” [0442] “A List User Info field contains the following subfields. An AID12 subfield (1-2007) of the User Info field is addressed to an associated STA whose AID is equal to the value in the AID12 subfield; this STA is the shared TXOP participant STA.”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature to receive, from the AP via the first channel, a frame identifying one or more non-AP STAs the AP intends to serve on the second channel during the TXOP, as taught by Son in Pettersson, to increase UL efficiency by non-AP stations.
Claims 17, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettersson in view of Wang et al. (US 2023/0388753, “Wang”).
Regarding claim 17, Pettersson teaches claim 1, and further teaches wherein: the first wireless device is an access point (AP) (FIG. 4 – AP2 ) that supports multi-primary channel access, enhanced multi-link single-radio operation, or both; the second wireless device is a station (STA) that supports multi-primary channel access, enhanced multi-link single-radio operation, or both ([0012], [0047]); {wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause apparatus to: receive the second indication from the second wireless device comprising synchronization information to assist the AP in regaining synchronization on the first channel}.
Pettersson does not teach wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause apparatus to: receive the second indication from the second wireless device comprising synchronization information to assist the AP in regaining synchronization on the first channel.
Wang teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause apparatus to: receive the second indication from the second wireless device comprising synchronization information to assist the AP in regaining synchronization on the first channel ([0152] “To assist STA2 to recover synchronization if the AP is capable of assisted blindness recovery, STA1 may indicate in the transmitted packet, for example, in the PHY or MAC header a request the AP MLD assist blindness recovery”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature to the second wireless device is a station (STA) that supports multi-primary channel access, enhanced multi-link single-radio operation, or both; the at least one of the third wireless device comprises the STA; and the first indication from the second wireless device comprises synchronization information to assist the AP in regaining synchronization on the first channel, as taught by Wang in Pettersson, achieve the target of increased peak throughput and improved efficiency.
Regarding claim 18, Pettersson in view of Wang teaches claim 1, but Pettersson fails to teach receive, from the STA via the first channel, an acknowledgement (ACK) frame indicating that a second STA associated with an overlapping basic service set (OBSS) terminated a transmit opportunity (TXOP) on the second channel, or that the AP has lost synchronization on the second channel, or both.
Wang teaches receive, from the STA via the first channel, an acknowledgement (ACK) frame indicating that a second STA associated with an overlapping basic service set (OBSS) terminated a transmit opportunity (TXOP) on the second channel, or that the AP has lost synchronization on the second channel, or both ([0152] - To assist STA2 to recover synchronization if the AP is capable of assisted blindness recovery, STA1 may indicate in the transmitted packet, for example, in the PHY or MAC header a request the AP MLD assist blindness recovery).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature to receive, from the STA via the first channel, an acknowledgement (ACK) frame indicating that a second STA associated with an overlapping basic service set (OBSS) terminated a transmit opportunity (TXOP) on the second channel, or that the AP has lost synchronization on the second channel, or both, as taught by Wang in Pettersson, achieve the target of increased peak throughput and improved efficiency.
Regarding claim 21, Pettersson in view of Wang teaches claim 17, but does not teach transmit, via the first channel, a request for the STA to assist the AP in regaining synchronization on the second channel, wherein receiving the second indication from the STA is based at least in part on the request.
Wang teaches transmit, via the first channel, a request for the STA to assist the AP in regaining synchronization on the second channel, wherein receiving the second indication from the STA is based at least in part on the request ([0174] “[0174] The AP may monitor the link and assess the link traffic to decide if it should or should not send the requested blindness recovery frame. For example, if the link has light traffic, it may be likely that the requesting STA would have to wait a long time for a frame to be transmitted so that it could recover, and the AP may immediately send the requested blindness recovery frame.”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature to transmit, via the first channel, a request for the STA to assist the AP in regaining synchronization on the second channel, wherein receiving the second indication from the STA is based at least in part on the request, as taught by Wang in Pettersson, achieve the target of increased peak throughput and improved efficiency.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettersson in view of Wang and further in view of Li et al. (US 2023/0232452, “Li”).
Regarding claim 19, Pettersson in view of Wang teaches claim 18, but Pettersson fails to teach perform one or more blindness recovery measures after receiving the ACK frame from the STA, wherein the one or more blindness recovery measures include using a lower energy detection threshold for channel contention, initiating frame exchanges with a request to send (RTS) frame, or refraining from initiating subsequent frame exchanges after a failed exchange of RTS and clear to send (CTS) frames.
Wang teaches perform one or more blindness recovery measures after receiving the ACK frame from the STA ([0170] “An AP that receives a multi-link trigger frame from a non-AP STA requesting AP assistance may monitor the link that AP assisted blindness recovery or medium synchronization is requested for”) wherein the one or more blindness recovery measures include {using a lower energy detection threshold for channel contention}, initiating frame exchanges with a request to send (RTS) frame, or refraining from initiating subsequent frame exchanges after a failed exchange of RTS and clear to send (CTS) frames ([0174] “The AP may monitor the link and assess the link traffic to decide if it should or should not send the requested blindness recovery frame. For example, if the link has light traffic, it may be likely that the requesting STA would have to wait a long time for a frame to be transmitted so that it could recover, and the AP may immediately send the requested blindness recovery frame. If the link has dense traffic, it may be likely that the requesting STA will not have to wait for very long to receive a transmitted frame, hence the AP may not send the requested blindness recovery frame as the current traffic on the link will allow the STA to recover quickly”).
Further Li teaches blindness recovery measures include using a lower energy detection threshold for channel contention using a lower energy detection threshold for channel contention ([0215]“a blind recovery process is implemented, that is, within time counted by a first timer of the primary channel, an energy detection threshold used for CCA on the primary channel is set to be -82 dBm, and an RTS frame is sent after a backoff counter on the primary channel backs off to 0, so as to perform channel protection.”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature to perform one or more blindness recovery measures after receiving the ACK frame from the STA, wherein the one or more blindness recovery measures include using a lower energy detection threshold for channel contention, initiating frame exchanges with a request to send (RTS) frame, or refraining from initiating subsequent frame exchanges after a failed exchange of RTS and clear to send (CTS) frames, as taught by Wang in Pettersson, achieve the target of increased peak throughput and improved efficiency.
Regarding claim 20, Pettersson in view of Wang teaches claim 19 but Pettersson fails to teach
transmit a request to send (RTS) frame via the second channel to solicit a clear to send (CTS) frame from the STA based at least in part on a determination that the STA is synchronized on the second channel, wherein the CTS frame comprises the second indication to assist the AP in regaining synchronization on the first channel.
Li teaches transmit a request to send (RTS) frame via the second channel to solicit a clear to send (CTS) frame from the STA based at least in part on a determination that the STA is synchronized on the second channel, wherein the CTS frame comprises the second indication to assist the AP in regaining synchronization on the first channel ( [0228] In a second implementation, the longest time at which the communication device leaves the primary channel is not limited, and is restricted by using suggested leave time. Specifically, if the time at which the communication device leaves the primary channel exceeds a fourth time, after the communication device performs switching from the second channel back to the primary channel, the communication device sets, within the time counted by the first timer of the primary channel, an energy detection threshold used for CCA on the primary channel to be a value less than -62 dBm (for example, -82 dBm), and sends an RTS frame after a BOC on the primary channel backs off to 0, so as to perform channel protection. If the time at which the communication device leaves the primary channel does not exceed the fourth time, the communication device performs EDCA on the primary channel after performing the switching from the second channel back to the primary channel. In other words, if the time at which the communication device leaves the primary channel does not exceed the fourth time, the communication device may use common EDCA contention after performing the switching back to the primary channel. If the time at which the communication device leaves the primary channel exceeds the fourth time, when the communication device performs the switching back to the primary channel, blind recovery needs to be performed, that is, the energy detection threshold needs to be reduced within time of a medium sync delay (e.g., MediumSyncDelay) timer (that is, the first timer) to perform EDCA con)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature to transmit a request to send (RTS) frame via the second channel to solicit a clear to send (CTS) frame from the STA based at least in part on a determination that the STA is synchronized on the second channel, wherein the CTS frame comprises the second indication to assist the AP in regaining synchronization on the first channel, as taught by Wang in Pettersson, achieve the target of increased peak throughput and improved efficiency.
Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettersson in view of
Lee.
Regarding claim 22, Pettersson teaches claim 1, and further teaches, wherein: the first wireless device is an access point (AP) (FIG. 4 – AP2 ) that supports multi-primary channel access, enhanced multi-link single-radio operation, or both ([0012] , [0047]); the second wireless device is a station (STA) that supports multi-primary channel access, enhanced multi-link single-radio operation, or both ([0012] “the non-AP STA and the AP exchange frames on one link at a time. Such operation is also referred to as MLSR (Multi Link Single Radio)”); {and the first indication from the second wireless device transfers at least a portion of a transmit opportunity (TXOP) on the first channel from the STA to the AP}.
Pettersson does not teach the first indication from the second wireless device transfers at least a portion of a transmit opportunity (TXOP) on the first channel from the STA to the AP.
Lee teaches the first indication from the second wireless device transfers at least a portion of a transmit opportunity (TXOP) on the second channel from the STA to the AP ([0132] “STA1 may perform TXOP sharing or TXOP transfer when allowing UL MU transmission within its TXOP duration. In TXOP transfer, the ownership of the TXOP is conveyed/transferred from STA1 to the AP for the remainder of the TXOP duration.” [0134] “STA1 may include an indication of a duration of the TXOP sharing (e.g., a duration of time during which STA1 relinquishes ownership of the TXOP to the AP”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature to the first indication from the second wireless device transfers at least a portion of a transmit opportunity (TXOP) on the first channel from the STA to the AP, as taught by Lee in Pettersson to allow efficient use of the medium.
Regarding claim 23, Pettersson in view of Lee teaches claim 22, and but Pettersson fails to teach to: receive, from the STA via the first channel, a request for the AP to trigger transmission of an uplink physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) from the STA; and transmit, in response to the request, a trigger frame that triggers the STA to transmit the uplink PPDU via the first channel.
Lee teaches receive, from the STA via the first channel, a request for the AP to trigger transmission of an uplink physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) from the STA (FIG. 9, frame 902 [0093] “STA1 may transmit the request frame 902 to the AP to request that the AP transmit the trigger frame 902. For instance, the request may be a request for the AP to grant/trigger a UL MU transmission”); and transmit, in response to the request, a trigger frame that triggers the STA to transmit the uplink PPDU via the first channel (FIG. 9, frame 702 [0096] “the transmission of a trigger frame (e.g., 702) is performed by the AP”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature to: receive, from the STA via the first channel, a request for the AP to trigger transmission of an uplink physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) from the STA; and transmit, in response to the request, a trigger frame that triggers the STA to transmit the uplink PPDU via the first channel, as taught by Lee in Pettersson to allow efficient use of the medium.
Regarding claim 24, Pettersson in view of Lee teaches claim 22, and but Pettersson fails to teach to: transmit a beacon frame that includes a traffic indication map (TIM) bit corresponding to the STA; receive a second frame from the STA, wherein the TXOP is transferred from the STA to the AP after reception of the second frame; and transmit, via the first channel, one or more buffered physical layer protocol data units (PPDUs) to the STA during the TXOP in accordance with the second frame.
Lee teaches to: transmit a beacon frame that includes a traffic indication map (TIM) bit corresponding to the STA ([0087] -The AP may transmit a trigger frame 702 to STA1 and STA2… the trigger frame 702 may include resource allocation information for STA1 and STA2. For instance, the resource allocation information may indicate which frequency/spatial resource(s) are allocated to STA1 and STA2 for transmission of uplink frames); receive a second frame from the STA, wherein the TXOP is transferred from the STA to the AP after reception of the second frame ([0132] “STA1 may perform TXOP sharing or TXOP transfer when allowing UL MU transmission within its TXOP duration. In TXOP transfer, the ownership of the TXOP is conveyed/transferred from STA1 to the AP for the remainder of the TXOP duration.” [0134] “STA1 may include an indication of a duration of the TXOP sharing (e.g., a duration of time during which STA1 relinquishes ownership of the TXOP to the AP”); and transmit, via the first channel, one or more buffered physical layer protocol data units (PPDUs) to the STA during the TXOP in accordance with the second frame ([0133] “the TXOP sharing may allow the AP to initiate a single UL MU transmission. The single UL MU transmission may include transmission of a single trigger frame by the AP to the station(s)” [0121] “a trigger frame and one or more of the downlink frames may be transmitted in one PPDU”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature to: transmit a beacon frame that includes a traffic indication map (TIM) bit corresponding to the STA; receive a second frame from the STA, wherein the TXOP is transferred from the STA to the AP after reception of the second frame; and transmit, via the first channel, one or more buffered physical layer protocol data units (PPDUs) to the STA during the TXOP in accordance with the second frame, as taught by Lee in Pettersson to allow efficient use of the medium.
Regarding claim 25, Pettersson in view of Lee teaches claim 22, and but Pettersson fails to teach to: receive, from the STA, a request for the AP to release one or more bufferable units (BUs) to the STA after the TXOP is transferred to the AP.
Lee teaches to: receive, from the STA, a request for the AP to release one or more bufferable units (BUs) to the STA after the TXOP is transferred to the AP ([0158] “during TXOP transfer, STA1 may indicate the AC of the TXOP to be utilized by the AP once the AP owns the TXOP. In this case, the AP may use the AC indicated by STA1 as the primary AC of the UL MU transmission.” [0133] “the TXOP sharing may allow the AP to initiate a single UL MU transmission. The single UL MU transmission may include transmission of a single trigger frame by the AP to the station(s)” [0121] “a trigger frame and one or more of the downlink frames may be transmitted in one PPDU”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature to: receive, from the STA, a request for the AP to release one or more bufferable units (BUs) to the STA after the TXOP is transferred to the AP, as taught by Lee in Pettersson to allow efficient use of the medium.
Claims 26 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2016/0345362, “Lee”) in view of Fang et al. (US 2022/0159718, “Fang”).
Regarding claim 26, Lee teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a second wireless device ([0132] - STA1), comprising: at least one processor; at least one memory coupled with the at least one processor ([0178]) the at least one memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to:
transmit, via a first channel, a first indication to assist a first wireless device in accessing a the first channel for communication with the second wireless device ([0132] “STA1 may perform TXOP sharing or TXOP transfer when allowing UL MU transmission within its TXOP duration. In TXOP transfer, the ownership of the TXOP is conveyed/transferred from STA1 to the AP for the remainder of the TXOP duration.” [0134] “STA1 may include an indication of a duration of the TXOP sharing (e.g., a duration of time during which STA1 relinquishes ownership of the TXOP to the AP.” [0133] “the TXOP sharing may allow the AP to initiate a single UL MU transmission. The single UL MU transmission may include transmission of a single trigger frame by the AP to the station(s)” [0121] “a trigger frame and one or more of the downlink frames may be transmitted in one PPDU”) {based at least in part on a second channel being busy}; and
communicate with the first wireless device via the first channel based at least in part on assisting the first wireless device to access the first channel in accordance with the first indication from the second wireless device ([0133] “the TXOP sharing may allow the AP to initiate a single UL MU transmission. The single UL MU transmission may include transmission of a single trigger frame by the AP to the station(s)” [0121] “a trigger frame and one or more of the downlink frames may be transmitted in one PPDU”).
Lee does not teach the procedure performed based on a second channel being busy
However, Fang teaches all channels are busy, when a link is sensed as idle, ML device, which may be a STA (see [0065]) acquires a TXOP for the link (see [0103]). It is understood STA is to perform communication with an AP (see FIG. 1 ML-STA1 is in communication with ML-PA2). It should be noted Lee teaches STA 1 communicates with AP (see Lee [0132] and [0133]), therefore the combination teaches the procedure above is performed based at least in part on a second channel being busy.
It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature the procedure is performed based at least in part on a second channel being busy, in Lee to reduce the access delay, improve transmission reliability, and increase transmission throughput while maintaining collision avoidance.
Regarding claim 30, Lee teaches method for wireless communication at a second wireless device ([0132] - STA1), comprising:
transmitting, via a first channel, a first indication to assist a first wireless device in accessing the first channel for communication with the second wireless device ([0132] “STA1 may perform TXOP sharing or TXOP transfer when allowing UL MU transmission within its TXOP duration. In TXOP transfer, the ownership of the TXOP is conveyed/transferred from STA1 to the AP for the remainder of the TXOP duration.” [0134] “STA1 may include an indication of a duration of the TXOP sharing (e.g., a duration of time during which STA1 relinquishes ownership of the TXOP to the AP.” [0133] “the TXOP sharing may allow the AP to initiate a single UL MU transmission. The single UL MU transmission may include transmission of a single trigger frame by the AP to the station(s)” [0121] “a trigger frame and one or more of the downlink frames may be transmitted in one PPDU”) {based at least in part on a second channel being busy}; and
communicating with the first wireless device via the first channel based at least in part on assisting the first wireless device to access the first channel in accordance with the first indication from the second wireless device ([0133] “the TXOP sharing may allow the AP to initiate a single UL MU transmission. The single UL MU transmission may include transmission of a single trigger frame by the AP to the station(s)” [0121] “a trigger frame and one or more of the downlink frames may be transmitted in one PPDU”).
Lee does not teach the procedure performed based on a second channel being busy
However, Fang teaches all channels are busy, when a link is sensed as idle, ML device, which may be a STA ([0065]) acquires a TXOP for the link ([0103]). It is understood STA is to perform communication with an AP (see FIG. 1 ML-STA1 is in communication with ML-PA2). It should be noted Lee teaches STA 1 communicates with AP (see Lee [0132] and [0133]), therefore the combination teaches the procedure above is performed based at least in part on a second channel being busy.
It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature the procedure is performed based at least in part on a second channel being busy, to reduce the access delay, improve transmission reliability, and increase transmission throughput while maintaining collision avoidance.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Fang and further in view of Pettersson.
Regarding claim 27, Lee teaches claim 26 and further teaches {the first wireless device is an access point (AP) that supports multi-primary channel access, enhanced multi-link single-radio operation, or both; the second wireless device is a station (STA) that supports multi-primary channel access, enhanced multi-link single-radio operation, or both}; and the first indication from the second wireless device transfers at least a portion of a transmit opportunity (TXOP) on the first channel from the STA to the AP ([0132] “STA1 may perform TXOP sharing or TXOP transfer when allowing UL MU transmission within its TXOP duration. In TXOP transfer, the ownership of the TXOP is conveyed/transferred from STA1 to the AP for the remainder of the TXOP duration.” [0134] “STA1 may include an indication of a duration of the TXOP sharing (e.g., a duration of time during which STA1 relinquishes ownership of the TXOP to the AP.”)
Lee does not teach the first wireless device is an access point (AP) that supports multi-primary channel access, enhanced multi-link single-radio operation, or both; the second wireless device is a station (STA) that supports multi-primary channel access, enhanced multi-link single-radio operation, or both ([0012], [0047])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature the first wireless device is an access point (AP) that supports multi-primary channel access, enhanced multi-link single-radio operation, or both; the second wireless device is a station (STA) that supports multi-primary channel access, enhanced multi-link single-radio operation, or both, as taught by Pettersson in Lee to provide efficient channel usage.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of
Fang in view of Pettersson and further in view of Li.
Regarding claim 28, Lee in view of Fang in view of Pettersson teaches claim 27 and further teaches perform a channel contention procedure to gain access to the first channel ([0126] “STA1 may win the contention and become the TXOP holder based on its successful transmission of the uplink frame 1802”) {based at least in part on detecting an overlapping basic service set (OBSS) physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) on the second channel}, wherein transmitting the first indication is based at least in part on gaining access to the second channel ([0134] “STA1 may include an indication of a duration of the TXOP sharing (e.g., a duration of time during which STA1 relinquishes ownership of the TXOP to the AP).”)
Lee does not teach perform a channel contention based at least in part on detecting an overlapping basic service set (OBSS) physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) on the second channel.
Li teaches perform a channel contention based at least in part on detecting an overlapping basic service set (OBSS) physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) on the second channel ([abstract]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the feature perform a channel contention based at least in part on detecting an overlapping basic service set (OBSS) physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU) on the first channel, as taught by Li in Lee to avoid degradation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 31, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, Applicant argues “CTAS message is not disclosed to be communicated based at least in part on a second channel being busy” (page 13, second paragraph) and “CTLS message… is not disclosed to be communicated :bases at least in part on a second channel being busy” (page 13, third paragraph).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection now includes embodiment of paragraphs [0060]-[0067]. Paragraph [0060] reads ““each AP is aware of the other AP's primary bandwidth part and scans the other AP's primary bandwidth part for control frames… AP1 performs control signaling (CTRL) for coordinating the sharing of the TXOP. This control signaling may involve transmission of the above-mentioned CTI message and/or CTAS message… the control signaling for coordinating the sharing of the TXOP, e.g., the CTI message, can also indicate the reservation of the TXOP by AP1. Due to the scanning of the primary bandwidth part of AP1, AP2 detects that AP1 has reserved the TXOP and is willing to share it, e.g., based on the CTI message transmitted by AP1… At the same time, AP2 may continue to contend for access to its own primary bandwidth, by performing CCA procedure in its primary bandwidth.” Similarly paragraph [0064] reads “due to the scanning of the primary bandwidth part of AP1, AP2 detects the CTI message and responds with a CTR message indicating that AP2 is willing to participate in the sharing of the TXOP…. Over the entire process, AP2 may continue attempting access to the third channel, by performing a CCA procedure, or the third channel may be blocked to setting of a NAV (Network Allocation Vector).
In other words, AP2 receives CTL messages including CTI and CTAS indicating AP1 sharing its TXOP. The process was performed while AP2 is attempting access by CCA or the third channel may be blocked. The Examiner submits that “performing CCA” indicates that AP2 does not yet have access to the channel which means the channel is busy up until that moment. Also “the third channel may be blocked to setting of a NAV (Network Allocation Vector)” clearly indicates the channel is busy.
Further Applicant argues Pettersson does not teach “receiving…via a first channel, a first indication to assist… in accessing the first channel” (page 13, last paragraph-14, first paragraph)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. FIG. 5 shows AP1 and AP2 have their own bandwidth parts. Paragraph [0059] recites “each AP is aware of the other AP's primary bandwidth part”. Similarly FIG. 6 and paragraph [0062] teach “the primary bandwidth part of AP1 is formed of a first channel (Ch1) and a second channel (Ch2). The primary bandwidth part of AP2 is formed of the second channel and a third channel (Ch3)”.
FIG. 5 shows CTRL (including CTI/CTAS, see [0060]) is performed in AP2’s bandwidth part. Similarly FIG. 6 shows CTI and CTAS messages are transmitted in Ch1 and Ch2 which belong to AP1. Further, “Due to the scanning of the primary bandwidth part of AP1, AP2 detects that AP1 has reserved the TXOP and is willing to share it, e.g., based on the CTI message transmitted by AP1” (paragraph [0060]), and “[d]ue to the scanning of the primary bandwidth part of AP1, AP2 detects the CTI message and responds with a CTR message indicating that AP2 is willing to participate in the sharing of the TXOP” (paragraph [0064]) teach AP2 receiving CTI/CTAS messages transmitted by AP1 in AP’s primary bandwidth part (corresponding to claimed “first channel”). Also the shared TXOP located in AP1’s bandwidth part (FIG. 5 and 6) and “the associated STA(s) switch to the corresponding channels, so that the data transmission(s) in the shared TXOP can be received” (paragraph [0064]) teach the claimed feature “accessing the first channel for communication”
Therefore, the Examiner submits Pettersson teaches all limitations of claim 1 and similarly claim 29.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 26 and 30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Arguments against the rejection of dependent claims rely upon the arguments above, accordingly, the same responses apply.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUOC THAI NGOC VU whose telephone number is (571)270-5901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30AM-6:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached at 571-272-7915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QUOC THAI N VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642